I don't know a single person who prefers HCL over literally anything else, but still, it's a happy day for them so I won't air my entitled little complaints and instead say: thank you hashicorp!
You made life as a cloud infra beard better for a while, and I wish you all success going onwards.
Cloudflare(NET) was ~$18 at IPO. It was ~$19 at lockup expiration 180 days later(versus nasdaq being a few percent down). If you bought at IPO you'd be up 734% but at lockup you'd be up only 688%.
Employees who own shares before the IPO are often prevented from selling them right as the company IPO, that's the lockup period. After this period (often 6 months), they are allowed to sold their shares. The reasoning of GP is that a lot of shares will be sold right after the lockup expires (because employees want to cash-in/diversify), artificially depressing the price.
Its usually 6 months. But there may be an alternative 'limited' lock up triggered earlier if the stock price is above a certain level continuously for a certain period of time.
Thank you Mitchell and Armon. I essentially built my DevOps consulting company off the back of Packer and Terraform. I’ll be a long term $HCP shareholder.
> ...a common confusion is multi-cloud vs. multi-vendor services. The latter is way more common, especially at smaller companies. Tools like Terraform are often touted as "multi-cloud" and people ask questions like "Why would I use Terraform if I use only AWS?" And the easy answer to that is tools like Terraform allow you to manage anything with an API as code. For example: do you want to manage DNS, or CDN, or DBs, etc. (that maybe aren't on AWS) as code? Terraform gives you the way to learn one config language/workflow to make that happen, even if 100% of your compute is on one provider. From a non-technical standpoint, this helps your organization start learning non-vendor-specific tooling, which better prepares you from a human standpoint for the future noted above.
> I think the #1 value of multi-cloud is organizational: you build your core infra/app lifecycle processes (dev, build, deploy, monitor, etc.) around a technology-agnostic stance. As technologies shift, other clouds become important, new paradigms emerge, etc. your organization is likely more prepared to experience that change. This is something that is core to our ideology at HashiCorp, its point #1 in our Tao that I published 4 years ago! https://www.hashicorp.com/blog/the-tao-of-hashicorp
Funny thing is Terraform isn't really cloud agnostic. I don't understand why this keeps coming up as a selling point all the time. Apart from the syntax of HCL and the concept of state-management. You still have to learn each vendors unique resource-types, which is like 10000 times more difficult than the underlying HCL language.
It's still a great product for lots of other reasons, just don't believe for one second it will help you move from AWS to Azure. It's almost like saying YAML is multi-vendor.
There are benefits to Terraform, even at basic levels. You can version control infrastructure, check if manual changes have been made, and quickly spin up new, identical environments from the same configurations.
Yes, there are alternative ways of accomplishing this, but simple config files that can be easily validated and used to check against current infrastructure is an ideal way to do this.
Before Terraform, I worked on a team that built what was basically terraform. It's just a natural, obvious, and effective way of managing cloud infrastructure.
Who needs an ISP, just connect ur own Ethernet to the backhaul. Why even buy an ethernet cable when the spec if an open standard, just make it at home.
That’s what I thought initially, yet I know a bunch of companies that do (like slack) and my ex company used to as well (facebook). It’s not clear until you actually are faced with a problem at your job that this solves. The whole strategy of hashicorp is to make devs and infra engs life more easy
Large companies will always pay huge amounts of $$$ for support. They can't be telling engineers "Go google some stuff" if critical components go down.
I can tell where I work it came down to a simple question of having to maintain, control, update, publish and develop TF modules vs just buying the dang thing and not having to worry about it.
If you are operating at a scale small enough where a single person is responsible for applying Terraform, and there are never two or more users interleaving applies which could collide, then you don't need TF cloud.
If on the other hand, you have multiple devs, committing changes, and applying them, then you need something like TF to ensure that the applies are consistent, ordered, and auditable.
For personal use? You don't need TF cloud, but the problems it solves get obvious as you scale up.
k8s won, it's kind of madness not to get onboard at this point. Yes, sure, you can do the 'same things' (almost) with nomad apparently less complexity, but k8s isn't anywhere as hard as it was a year or two ago today..
I use it to now and then reset the Dev DB. So it is marginally more convenient than running on your pc (since it takes 20 mins to reset the db). But im sure there are better usecases haha.
Setting all my infrastructure in Terraform in general has been a big waste of time for our startup since as soon as we got it running we never ever had to touch it again. Actually curious if somone touches their infra regularly.
Having used vault quite a lot, I'm not really sold on it. Do you see any value in this tool? I've done the whole sidecar mess, middle of the night three keys unlock like we're arming a nuclear weapon and everything, and most of the time it's just been a total faff and imo security theatre vs actual security.
End of the day, the secrets are being written to a .properties file or /proc/<pid>/env somewhere anyway and can be read by whomever has the permissions or the shellcode to do so..
Terrraform is declarative and describes the end state of what you want your system to look like. Executing terraform on anything other than blank slate requires that the deployment needs to know state of the current system. You can store that state yourself, or you can have HCP store it for you as a service
It's _such_ a crowded space though. Getting into monitoring is often a death trap because companies often think, "Hey, that's gotta be a logical next step, everybody loves dashboards" and then they get smoked by Splunk and Datadog because it's way harder than it looks and already saturated.
They have some many parts of spinning up/change the infrastructure (Terraform), connect the services (Consul), run the apps (Nomad) but not their own way to tell you how well they do. Also monitoring is quite sticky and high margin. I think it makes sense but have no special insight.
Starting to see this a lot, and it makes all the words of encouragement feel fake, because it is always using words like "we" and linking back to their own stuff. It comes off as hollow.
nerds: stop bringing your own cake to other people's birthday parties.
Only if the company is looking to really raise a lot of money in the IPO.
The bump and later positive price movements benefits employees and founders a lot, therefore helps in retention and lower compensation costs for new employees etc and also investors who sell .
In pure dollars leaving too much on the table is bad, but a nice IPO bump is free marketing for the company. A 20-30% bump means it'll lead in a bunch of news stories, and create some buzz around the company. Of course, this might be less important for a non-consumer oriented company.
Could you explain what you mean by this? From their launch at 80, they pretty quickly went up to ~90, then dropped back to 83-84, which is up a few percent for the day. What sort of bump do you expect? (Legitimately, I'm not familiar with this sort of thing)
One obvious problem with a pop is that it implies your stock was sold too cheaply and you could have raised more money for the same shares. However, your IPO investors love it.
Direct Listings are IPO alternatives that are sometimes purported to solve IPO pops.
There were some companies during the original dot-com boom that immediately "popped" several hundred percent on opening day. Some of them even managed to stay there until the lockup period for employees was over, making them very rich.
Looked decent, they priced at 72 and opened at 81, whilst the wider market tanked pretty hard, everything was red. Many saas stocks are down double digit over past week too.
Readit News
You made life as a cloud infra beard better for a while, and I wish you all success going onwards.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/HCL_Technologies
Deleted Comment
> ...a common confusion is multi-cloud vs. multi-vendor services. The latter is way more common, especially at smaller companies. Tools like Terraform are often touted as "multi-cloud" and people ask questions like "Why would I use Terraform if I use only AWS?" And the easy answer to that is tools like Terraform allow you to manage anything with an API as code. For example: do you want to manage DNS, or CDN, or DBs, etc. (that maybe aren't on AWS) as code? Terraform gives you the way to learn one config language/workflow to make that happen, even if 100% of your compute is on one provider. From a non-technical standpoint, this helps your organization start learning non-vendor-specific tooling, which better prepares you from a human standpoint for the future noted above.
> I think the #1 value of multi-cloud is organizational: you build your core infra/app lifecycle processes (dev, build, deploy, monitor, etc.) around a technology-agnostic stance. As technologies shift, other clouds become important, new paradigms emerge, etc. your organization is likely more prepared to experience that change. This is something that is core to our ideology at HashiCorp, its point #1 in our Tao that I published 4 years ago! https://www.hashicorp.com/blog/the-tao-of-hashicorp
-mitchellh, https://www.reddit.com/r/devops/comments/91afzz/why_multiclo...
Where i'm at it has been SQL Server for the last 12 years and now Azure for cloud services.
It's highly unlikely that will change for the next 10 years.
And almost equally unlikely that Terraform will be used instead of ARM templates and Bicep.
It's still a great product for lots of other reasons, just don't believe for one second it will help you move from AWS to Azure. It's almost like saying YAML is multi-vendor.
Yes, there are alternative ways of accomplishing this, but simple config files that can be easily validated and used to check against current infrastructure is an ideal way to do this.
Before Terraform, I worked on a team that built what was basically terraform. It's just a natural, obvious, and effective way of managing cloud infrastructure.
You joking but I read this comment way too often on HN.
If on the other hand, you have multiple devs, committing changes, and applying them, then you need something like TF to ensure that the applies are consistent, ordered, and auditable.
For personal use? You don't need TF cloud, but the problems it solves get obvious as you scale up.
I’ve seen interest increasing in Nomad lately as well. More conversations about it.
Terraform has a huge following though.
Setting all my infrastructure in Terraform in general has been a big waste of time for our startup since as soon as we got it running we never ever had to touch it again. Actually curious if somone touches their infra regularly.
End of the day, the secrets are being written to a .properties file or /proc/<pid>/env somewhere anyway and can be read by whomever has the permissions or the shellcode to do so..
nerds: stop bringing your own cake to other people's birthday parties.
Deleted Comment
Dead Comment
https://www.google.com/finance/quote/HCP:NASDAQ?sa=X&ved=2ah...
The bump and later positive price movements benefits employees and founders a lot, therefore helps in retention and lower compensation costs for new employees etc and also investors who sell .
One obvious problem with a pop is that it implies your stock was sold too cheaply and you could have raised more money for the same shares. However, your IPO investors love it.
Direct Listings are IPO alternatives that are sometimes purported to solve IPO pops.
Or is this a Google Fiance Bug?